EDMUND   Dl^  TC1^KE1^MVZ 


^  .  ■  ^-i! 


T  II  E 


Moravian  Episcopate 


BY 

EDMUXD  DE  SCHWEINITZ 

PASTOR  OF  TOE  CHURCH  AT  BETHLEHEM,  PA. 


BETHLEHEM : 
MORAVIAN    PUBLICATION  OFFICE, 

A.  C.  CLACDER,  PRIMER, 
18G0. 


NOTE. 


The  following  paper  was  originally  written  for  "  The  Moravian,"  the- 
weekly  journal  of  the  Moravian  Church,  and  appeared  in  its  issu«  of  the' 
30th  of  November,  1865. 


THE  MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATK 


We  have  been  repeatedly  asked  to  give  a  critical  account  of  the 
Episcopate  of  the  Moravians.  It  forms  an  interesting;  subject  of 
inquiry.  In  the  popular  histories  of  the  Church  its  origin  is  set 
forth,  but  an  examination  into  its  validity  would  have  been  foreign 
to  their  purpose.  An  history  whose  province  it  would  bo  to  discuss 
this  point,  and,  in  general,  to  bring  forward  the  authorities  which 
exist  for  the  current  narratives  of  the  founding  of  the  Church  and 
the  institution  of  her  ministry,  has  not  yet  appeared  iu  the  English 
language.  Indeed  it  is  well  that  a  work  of  this  kind  remains  to 
be  written,  for  in  recent  times  only  have  the  most  important  records 
come  to  light,  and  but  a  few  years  ago,  through  the  researches  and 
publications  of  Bohemian  antiquaries,  have  they  been  made  more 
generally  available  than  they  were  when  first  discovered. 

We  need  scarcely  say  that  this  article  is  not  meant  to  subserve  the 
interests  of  exclusivism,  nor  ba.sed  upon  the  idea  that  episcopal 
ordination  only  is  valid.  The  founders  of  the  Moravian  Church 
in  the  fifteenth  century  secured  what  is  commonly  called  "  the 
apostolical  succession"  because  they  believed  that  an  episcopal 
form  of  government  would  be  the  best  for  them,  would  give  them 
stability  and  unity,  and,  above  all,  would  help  them  maintain  their 
protesting  position  over  against  the  Romish  Hierarchy  and  the 
National  Church  of  Bohemia  ;  hut  they  did  not  hesitate  to  fraternize 
with  the  Reformers  of  Gerrfiany.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  one  of 
their  highest  aims  to  bring  about  a  union  among  all  evangelical 
Christians.  As  they  were  the  leaders  of  the  Protestant  world  in  ^| 
translating  the  Bible  into  a  vernacular  and  publishing  hymns  and  • ' 
introducing  a  holy  discipline,  so  also  in  the  furtherance  of  this  ^ 
V-  great  duty.  And  such  has  remained  the  principle  of  the  Church 
to  the  present  day.    Her  episcopacy  is  essential  to  her  existence;  it 


4 


THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


is  the  historic  form  of  her  organic  life;  it  enabled  her  to  come 
forth  from  a  time  in  which  her  visible  structure  was  destroyed 
with  tlie  stream  of  that  life  uninterrupted  ;  it  conferred  upon  her 
the  riyht  to  renew  her  ecclesiastical  constitution  and  reoccupy  her 
ancient  place  in  (Christendom.  But,  at  the  same  time,  she  glories 
in  the  catholic  standpoint  of  her  fathers  ;  and  instead  of  presuming 
to  unchurch  other  bodies  of  believers  who  have  no  episcopacy, 
upholds  a  close  fellowship  with  them. 

Nor  do  we  intend  to  give  a  polemic  treatise,  although  we  shall 
take  notice  of  a  paper  against  the  validity  of  the  Moravian 
episcopacy  written,  in  iSof),  by  Rev.  A.  P.  Perceval,  of  England, 
and  occasioned  by  a  pamphlet  published  in  1833,  entitled  "Apos- 
tolical 8ucce.s.sion  Examined,'"  in  which  the  episcopate  of  the 
Moravians  was  exalted  above  that  of  the  Anglican  Church.'  We 
shall  do  this,  first,  because  it  is,  in  so  far  as  we  know,  the  only 
critical  attempt  over  made  to  disprove  with  a  show  of  ancient  au- 
thorities the  lawfulness  of  our  episcopacy,  and,  second,  because 
it  has  lately  been  republished  in  this  country.  Our  chief  purpose, 
however,  will  be  to  meet  the  wishes  of  members  of  the  Church 
desiring  information  upon  this  subject,  as  expressed  to  us  long 
before  the  api)earanee  of  that  republication. 

In  order  to  a  pniper  comprehension  of  our  narrative,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  present  a  somewhat  detailed  statement  of  the  sources 
of  early  Moravian  history. 

IUST01U(!AL  SOUJICES. 

In  the  very  nature  oi'  the  case  some  obscurity  with  regard  to 
that  history  must  be  expected.  This  will  be  manifest  from  the 
following  consiilcrations  : 

In  the  first  place,  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Bi'Cthren  were 
an  oppressed  and  persecuted  people ;  the  rack  and  the  stake  beset 
them  on  every  side.    These  were  not  circumstances  favorable  to  the 

1.  Fn  1841,  a  Moravian  Clergyman  of  England  having  published  a 
letter  addressed  by  him  to  Rev.  Dr.  Hook,  Vicar  of  Leeds,  upon  the 
sul)jpc  t  of  the  Moravian  episcopacy  as  n(  kiiovvlc<lKed  by  the  British  Par- 
liament, in  1749,  Dr.  Hook,  in  the  way  ef  reply,  lejirinted  Perceval's  paper 
with  additions  in  the  September  number  of  the  "  Christian's  Miscellany," 
of  which  he  was  editor,  entitling  it  "  An  Enquiry  into  the  Episcopacy 
of  the  Moravians :  occasioned  by  a  letter  frona  a  Presbyter  of  that  com- 
munity to  the  Ilev.  Dr.  Hook." 


THK    MORAVIAN    E  P  I  S  C  ()  P  A  T  K  . 


5 


collectioD  of  materials  for  the  histoiian.  "  Of  what  sort  our  records 
must  be  amidst  such  great  disquietude  aud  persecutions,"  writes 
Bishop  Nigranus,  in  155G,  to  the  well  known  Reformer,  Flacius 
Illyricus,  thou  mayest  safely  judge. Moreover,  both  the  law 
of  self-preservation  and  the  rule  of  Christ  taught  them  to  combine 
the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  with  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove. 
Hence  they  intentionally  concealed  seme  occurrences  that  would 
have  inflamed  the  wrath  of  their  enemies.  Bishop  Blahoslav 
writing,  in  1571,  to  Ijasitius,  who  was  preparing  an  history  of  the 
Church,  says:  "He  (J]saias,  his  pupil,  by  whose  hands  he  sent 
the  letter)  will  indicate  to  thee  the  reasons  which  have  led  the 
Brethren  to  prefer  that  their  aifairs  should  remain  unknown  rather 
than  be  published  iibroad.  They  do  not  wish  to  extol  themselves 
and  make  themselves  the  subject  of  their  own  praise  :  they  prefer 
peace  and  tranquility  to  all  thinus,  being,  namely,  men  cast  down, 
oppressed  and  greatly  afflicted. 

In  the  next^pjace,  their  earliest  archives,  which  were  deposited 
at  Leitomischl,  in  IJohemia,  together  with  the  private  library  of 
Bishop  Augusta  embracing  most  valuable  records,  totally  perished, 
in  1546,  in  a  conflagration  which  swept  away  that  entiretown.^ 

And,  finallj^,  the  great  mass  of  their  numerous  publications  which 
were  issued  at  a  later  period  fell  a  prey,  in  the  Bohemian  Anti-re- 
formation, to  the  fury  of  Jesuits  and  imperial  dragoons  sent  through 
the  country  to  search  out  and  burn  every  vestige  of  evangelical 
literature.  I'pon  this  point  the  Homan  Catl  olic  historian,  tiindeiy 
—  of  whom  more  hereafter — while  carefully  withholding  the  true 
cause,  which  would  stigmatize  his  church,  is  nevertheless  con- 
strained to  acknowledge :  The  writings  of  the  Brethren  in 
particular  seem  to  have  been  devoted  to  annihilation.  We  are  not 
astonished  that,  as  a  general  thing,  but  one  or  two  copies  of  works 
in  manuscript  have  come  down  to  us  from  former  days :  but 
that  printed  works,  circulating  by  the  hundreds  and  thousands 
scarcely  two  and  a  half  centuries  ago,  have  in  part  altogether 


1.  Gindely's  Quelleii  ziir  Gescliklite  tier  Bohmistbeu  Brueder,  Vienna, 
1859  p.  278. 

2.  Ibid  p.  327. 

3.  Ibid  p.  278 :  also  the  Preface  p.  ix  :  furtber,  Die  Katechismen  der 
Waldenser  und  Bohmischen  Brueder,  by  Dr.  von  Zeschwitz,  Erlangen, 
1863,  p.  135. 


6 


THK,    MORAVIAN     K  l>  I  S  (' ()  P  A  T  K  . 


disappeared  aud  in  part  are  extant  in  not  niore  copies  than  if  they 
were  manuscripts — this  is  so  remarkable  a  fact  that  it  becomes 
credible  only  because  it  cannot  possibly  be  denied."^ 

It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  a  partial  obscurity  rests  upon 
the  first  era  of  the  history  of  the  Brethren,  including  the  period  in 
which  they  received  the  episcopacy.  It  is,  rather,  surprizing  that 
at  this  late  day  we  can,  in  ijpite  of  the  disasters  and  persecutions  of 
former  times,  give  so  clear  a  view  of  their  origin,  and  bring  forward 
.so  many  and  ^nch  solid  authorities. 

After  the  burning  of  lyoitomischl,  the  Brethren  began  (about  1550) 
to  gather  materials  for  new  archive.s.  This  important  labor  was  in-, 
trusted  to  various  Bishops,  of  whom  the  most  active  were  Nigranus 
and  Blahoslav.  By  their  exertions  there  were  brought  together 
fourteen  folio  volumes  of  manuscripts  relating  to  the  history  of 
the  Church  and  her  correspondence  with  the  Ileformers,  and  con- 
taining duplicates  of  some  of  the  lost  records.''^  Until  the  year 
1620,  these  second  archives  were  preserved  at  difi'erent  places  in 
Bohemia  and  31oravia.  Then,  amidst  the  storms  of  the  Anti-re- 
formation, pious  hands  conveyed  them  for  safe-keeping  to  Lissav,a 
town  of  what  is  now  Prussian  Poland,  not  far  from  the  Silesian 
frontier,"*  where  they  remained  for  two  hundred  and  twenty-two 
years,*  and  were,  at  length,  entirely  torgotten^  in  as  much  as  Ja- 
blonsky  und  Sitkovius,  the  last  Bishops  of  the  Ancient  Church, 
passed  awny  without  informing  the  Kenewed  Church  of  their  exist- 
ence.    Perhaps  they  wore  themselves  not  aware  of  it. 

The  principal  writei-s  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries 
who  treated  of  the  history  of  the  Brethren,  and,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  drew  their  information  from  these  archives,  are  the 
following : 

1.  John  liusitius,  a  Polish  nobleman  of  the  Befornied  Church. 
Traveling  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  he  became  an  ardent  admirer 
of  the  Brethren,  examined  their  records  and  produced  their  history, 


1.  (iindely's  Quellen  /,iir  Opscliichtp  d.  Boh.  Briierler,  Preface,  p.  vi. 

2.  Gindcly's  fjdii'lloii,   I'renico,  p,  i.^  iiiid  .\. 

3.  Ijissii  lies  about  loiiy-lwo  inilos  S.  W.  of  I'oscn,  and  is  one  of  the 
station,s  on  llic  railroiid  from  thitt  cily  to  lircslau.  It  was  the  original 
seat    of  tlic    Ijcczinski  family,  ancestoi'.s  of  Stanislaus,  King  of  Poland, 

4.  Gindely  s  Quellen  zurGesch.  d.  Boh.  Bruedor,  Preface  p.  x. 


T  UK    MO  H  A  V  1  A  N     K  V  I  .S  C  (>  I'  A  T  K 


written  in  Latin  in  eight  books,  between  the  years  1560  and  1570.^ 
In  1586  he  sent  it  to  their  Bishops  for  publication ;  but  fearing 
that  it  might  seem  to  extol  their  Church  above  measure,  they  did 
not  print  it.  One  of  their  number,  however,  Bishop  Turnovius, 
enriched  it  with  marginal  notes.  In  1649,  xVmos  Comenius  issued 
the  eighth  book,  the  rest  of  the  work  was  never  published.  Four  / 
Manuscript  copies  of  it  are  extant,  namely :  two  in  the  Moravian; 
Archives  of  Ilerrnhut,  Saxony ;  one  in  a  Library  of  Prague  ;  an4 
one  in  the  University  Library  of  Goeltingeu. 

2.  Joachim  Camerarius,  the  well  known  humanist  and  professor 
at  Leipzig.  At  the  request  of  the  Brethren  themselves  he  wrote 
their  history,'^  between  1570  and  1574,  in  which  latter  year  he 
died.  But  it  was  not  given  to  the  world  until  thirty  years  after 
his  decease,  and  then,  not  the  Brethren,  but  his  own  grandson, 
Louis  Camerarius,  had  it  printed  at  Heidelberg  (1605)  with  addi- 
tions of  his  own.^  Camerarius  never  visited  Bohemia  and  per- 
sonally never  consulted  the  archives  of  the  Brethren.  His  principal 
authorities  were  Lasitius' M.  S.  History,  and  Blahoslav's  Historic 
Treatises,  of  which  latter  we  will  speak  more  at  length  hereafter. 
These  had  been  sent  to  him  by  the  Bishops  from  Bohemia. 

3.  John  Amos  Comenius,  that  illustrious  Bishop  of  the  exiled 
Brethren  who  never  ceased  to  hope  that  their  Church  would  be 
resuscitated,  and  zealously  labored  for  this  consummation.  He 
published  at  Lissa,  in  1632,  the  Ratio  Disciplinae  Unitatis 
Fratrum  which  had  been  ofl&cially  drawn  up  by  the  Bishops,  and 
adopted  by  the  General  Synod  held  in  1616,  at  Zerawitz,  in  Mo- 
ravia. It  embraces  a  very  complete  account  of  the  ministry,  con- 
stitution and  discipline  of  the  Church,  and  Comenius  added  a 
concise  but  exceedingly  important  history.  A  second  edition  of  this 
work  appeared  in  1660,  at  Amsterdam,  with  the  eighth  book  of 
Lasitius  prefixed.  This  edition  Comenius  intended  as  a  legacy  for 
posterity  in  the  event  of  a  renewal  of  the  Church,  and  dedicated 


1.  The  title  of  this  work  is:  Lasitii  Origo,  Progressus,  Res  prosperae 
quam  adversae,  nec  non  Mores,  Ins/itula,  Consuetudines  Fratrum. 

2.  Gindely's  Quellen,  p.  343  and  347. 

3.  The  title  of  this  work  is  :  Historiea  Narratio  de  Fratrum  Orthodoxorum 
teeleaiis  in  Bohemia,  Moravia  et  Polonia. 


8 


THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


it  to  the  Church  of  England,  to  whose  fraternal  care  he  commended 
the  Brethren  of  a  future  age.^ 

4.  Adrian  Weugersky,  an  exiled  minister  of  the  Brethren.  Un- 
der the  assumed  name  of  Kegeuvolscius  he  issued,  in  1652,  at 
Utrecht,  an  history  of  the  Churches  of  Slavonic  origin  in  Bohemia, 
Moravia  and  Poland.^  In  1079  a  second  edition  came  out  at  Ams- 
terdam, with  his  real  name. 

After  the  renewal  of  the  Moravian  Church  (1722),  these  four 
secondary  sources — we  omit  several  minor  ones  because  they  are 
mere  compilations  from  those  we  have  mentioned — constituted,  for 
a  period  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  the  only  sources  open 
to  writers  on  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Brethren,  whether  they 
were  friends  or  foes.  By  these  Cranz,  Loretz,  Holmes  and  John' 
Plitt  ^  were  guided  ;  on  one  of  these  Perceval  mainly  relied.  Of 
the  existence  of  original  records  they  know  nothing. 

In  1842,  lio\vevi'i\  a  3Ii.iavian  clergyman,  on  a  visit  to  Lissa, 
accidentally  discovei  eil  ihuse  in  the  vestry-room  of  one  of  its  churches. 
Thirteen  volumes  of  the  ancient  archives  were  there,  intact,  and 
in  a  state  of  excellent  preservation.*  They  were  purchased  by  the 
Church,  placed  in  the  Library  at  Herrnhut,  and  are  now  technically 
known  as  the  "Jjissa  Polios." 

These  invaluable  documents  have  thrown  new  light  upon  the  early 
history  of  the  Brethren.  They  have  been  examined  with  much 
care  by  Anton  Gindely,  a  lioman  Catholic  Professor  of  Prague, 
and  one  of  the  most  distinguished  antiquaries  of  Bohemia,  who  has 
quite  recently  been  appointed  Archivist  of  that  country ;  and  by 
Franz  Palacky,  also  a  Roman  Catholic,  the  great  Bohemian  historian, 


1.  A  third  edition  was  published  at  Halle,  in  1702,  by  Buddaeus,  who 
wrote  a  lengthy  introduction  to  it,  and  embodied  with  the  work  Co- 
menius'  Treatise  on  the  Amelioration  of  the  Human  Race.  Of  .this 
edition,  the  following  is  the  title  ;  Jo.  Amos  Cometui,  Eccl.  F.  F.  Boh. 
Episcopi,  Hisloria  Fratrum  Bohrmorum,  eorum  Ordo  et  Disciplina  ecchsiastica, 
ad  Fcclesiae  Rcctc  Cnnstitiu  ndai'  Exemplar,  cum  Ecclesiae  JJohem.  ad  Angli- 
canam  Fararnesi. 

2.  liei/envolscii Si/xliiKd  liixUii  ini-chronologicum  ecclesiamm  Slavonicarum. 

3.  In  1828,  Rev.  John  I'lilt  wrote  the  best  and  most  erudite  history  of 
the  Boh.  Brn.  which  existed  prior  to  the  discovery  of  the  original 
sources.  It  was,  however,  not  intended  for  publication,  but  as  a  guide 
for  lectures  in  the  Theological  Seminaries  of  the  Church.  Hence  it  re- 
mains in  manuscript. 

4.  The  14*h  folio  has  since  been  found  in  the  Bohemian  Museum  at 
Prague. 


TUK   MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


9 


whose  "Geschichte  von  Boehmen"  has  now  reached  nine  vqlumesj 
and  forms  the  most  learned  and  exhaustive  work  which  has  ever 
appeared  upon  that  subject.  Both  these  writers  consider  them  of 
paramount  importance  for  the  history  not  only  of  the  Brethren,  but 
of  Bohemia  in  general/  and  hence  Gindely  is  now  having  them 
copied  entire  for  the  National  Archives  at  Prague.^  Nor  have  they 
failed  to  make  use  of  them.  The  seventh,  eighth  and  ninth  vol- 
umes of  Palacky's  History  contain  frequent  references  to  them; 
while  Gindely,  who  has  taken  up  the  history  of  the  Bohemian 
lirethren,  in  spite  of  his  Koniit  h  views,  with  an  enthusiasm  which 
can  be  explained  j'roui  the  stand-point  ol'  a  i'ellow-naticnality  only, 
says  that  his  "  Gescliiclito  der  Builimischeu  Bruodcr"  (i'raguc, 
1857j  is  based  substantially  upon  these  records.  This  work,  of 
which  two  large  octavo  volumes  have  appeared  and  a  third  is  ex- 
pected, is  the  most  complete  history  of  the  Brethren  that  has  been 
published  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  although  its  Romish  bias 
greatly  mars  its  value.3  This  is  not  the  case,  however,  with  its 
supplemental  volume,  entitled  "  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  der 
Bochmischen  Brueder  vornehmlich  ihren  Zusammenhang  mit  Deut- 
schland  betreffend"  (Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Bohemian 
Brethren  particularly  in  relation  to  their  correspondence  with 
Germany)  :  for  it  consists  of  a  literal  publication  of  many  of  the 
Latin,  and  of  German  versions  of  a  number  of  the  Bohemian 
manuscripts  of  the  Lissa  Folios.  Dr.  Gindely  deserves  the  thanks 
of  the  whole  Church  for  this  magnificent  contribution  to  her  litera- 
ture.* 


1.  Gindely's  Geschichte  d.  Bochmischen  Brueder,  Preface,  p.  iv  :  also 
his  Quellen,  Preface,  p.  vii. 

2.  Palacky's  Gesch.  v.  Boehmen,  vol.  ix,  p.  432,  note  335. 

3.  The  thorough  research  upon  which  this  history  is  based,  is  worthy 
of  all  praise,  but  the  mode  of  representation  is  often  faulty  in  the  ex- 
treme. Nor  can  it  be  otherwise.  Gindely  occupies,  as  the  article,  in  Her- 
zog's  EDcyclopacdia,  on  the  Renewed  Brethren's  -Church  well  says,  a 
standpoint  which  is  inwardly  and  therefore  fundamentally  foreign  to  that 
of  the  Brethren. 

4.  Besides  these  two  works,  Gindely  has  also  written  a  Life  of  Bishop 
Amos  Comenius;  the  Dogmatical  views  of  the  ffohemian  and  Moravian 
Bvn..  with  some  notices  respecting  the  history  of  their  origin  (1854); 
and  the  "Oekrctcn  der  Brueder  Uiiitict"  (Prague,  JSCr)).  With  these 
works,  which  we  h:iv  e  not  yet  been  ;ibie  lu  jirocure,  we  are  not  acquainted. 
Hence  Gindely,  having  devoted  no  k'ss  thau  five  works,  one  of  them  of 
three  vols.,  to  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  might  well  be  called  their  historian 


10 


THE   MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


Of  Moravian  works  these  Folios  have  called  forth  a  manuscript 
volume  of  x\ddenda  to  Plitt's  MS.  History ;  a  concise  account 
of  the  Brethren's  Church  by  Rev.  Henry  L.  Reichel,  formerly 
President  of  the  Continental  Theological  Seminary  ;  and  Bishop 
Croeger's  latest  "  Geschichte  der  Alten  Bruederkirche"  (Gnadau, 
1865). 

And,  last  but  not  least,  they  have  brought  to  light  the  Historic 
Treatises  of  John  Blahoslav  ;  the  one  written  in  Latin,  in  1556,^ 
the  other  in  Bohemian  ,  somewhat  later,  but  more  in  detail.^  These 
Treatises  are  the  oldest  Histories  of  the  Brethren,  and  the  first 
was  composed  expressly  in  order  to  give  the  Reformers  of  Germany 
a  correct  account  of  the  origin  and  ministry  of  the  Church.  Their 
importance  cannot  be  over-estimated. 

With  such  newly  discovered  original  sources,  then,  to  serve  as  a 
complementto  the  former  secondary  ones,  we  proceed  to  consider  the 
Moravian  Episcopacy. 

THE  PLAN  OE  THE  BRETHREN  TO  SECURE  THE  EPLS- 
COPACY  EUOM  THE  BOHEMIAN  WALDENSES. 

During  the  first  ten  years  of  their  existence  (1457  to  1467)  the 
Bohemian  Brethren  were  a  Society  rather  than  a  Church.  Occu- 
pying an  isolated  retreat — the  Barony  of  Lititz  in  the  North 
Eastern  part  of  Bohemia — they  endeavored  to  carry  out  among 
themselves  the  reformatory  principles  of  John  Huss,  and  edified 
one  another  in  the  Ijord.  Their  ministers  were  pious  priests  or- 
dained in  the  Calixtiue  or  National  Church.  Gradually,  however, 
they  felt  the  necessity  of  a  total  separation  from  the  Establishment 
and  of  a  regular  ecclesiastical  organization  of  their  own ;   and  yet 


/)ar  ezfcHence,  if  be  were  uot  iinfortuufttely  a  son  of  Rome.  It  is  certainly 
remarkable,  t'ovvever,  that  that  Church  which  crushed  the  Brethren  ia 
the  lYth  century,^  is,  through  the  works  of  one  of  her  most  learned 
writers,  doing  what  she  cau  to  malse  their  memory  known  in  the  19th 
century. 

1.  It  is  entitled,  Summa  qiuicdam  brevissimc  collecta  ex  varih  Scriptis  Fra- 
iruni,  qui  fiilfo  Viildcitst^K  vel  I'kcardi  voeantur^  de  corundem  Fratrum  origine 
el  aclis,  and  found  in  the  viiith  Lissa  Folio.  We  have  in  our  possessiott 
a  copy  of  this  Treatise,  made  in  I84G,  from  the  Folio  by  the  then  Arch- 
ivist of  the  Brethren's  Church. 

2.  Dr.  Gindely  has  made  a  German  tianslatiou  of  this  Bohemian  Hist, 
for  the  Continental  Theo.  Sera. 


THE  m'oRAVIAN  episcopate. 


11 


they  hesitated  to  take  this  step  without  unmistakable  evidence 
that  it  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  will  of  God.  On  the 
occasion  of  a  Synod,  therefore,  convened  in  14G7  at  Lhota,  in 
the  Barony  of  Reichenau,  the  decision  was  left  to  the  Lord  by  the 
lot,  agreeably  to  the  example  of  the  apostles.  Nine  candidates  were 
chosen  and  twelve  lots  put  into  a  vase,  nine  being  blank  and  three 
inscribed  with  the  word  Est.  These  lots  were  drawn  singly  by  a  lad, 
named  Prokop,  who  presented  one  to  each  of  the  candidates.  Three 
lots  remained  in  the  vase.  It  is  evident  that  these  three  might 
have  been  the  ones  marked  with  Est,  and  that  all  the  candidates 
might  have  received  blanks,  in  which  case  the  Synod  would  have 
accepted  the  result  as  a  divine  intimation  that  the  time  for  insti- 
tuting an  independent  ministry  was  not  come.  But  the  lots  having 
been  simultaneously  opened,  those  with  Est  were  found  in  the 
hands  of  Matthias  of  Kunwald,  Thomas  of  Prelouc,  and  Elias'of 
Chrenovic.  Thus  God  both  approved  the  creation  of  a  separate 
ministry  and  designated  its  fir.=^t  candidates.^ 

But  how  were  they  to  be  ordained  ?  Should  the  priests  present 
at  the  Synod  proceed  to  do  this  and  thus  establish  presbyterial 
ordination  ?  It  was  a  question  which,  even  prior  tn  the  meeting 
at  Lhota,  had  caused  the  Brethren  no  little  anxiety.  "  Their 
minds,"  says  Comenius,  "  were  agitated  by  the  tear  whether  an 
ordination  would  be  sufficiently  legitimate  if  a  presbyter  and  not 
truly  a  bishop  were  to  create  a  presbyter ;  and  in  what  manner,  in 
case  of  controversies,  such  an  ordination  could  be  defended  either 
among  themselves  or  against  others."^  And  now  that  the  Synod 
was  assembled,  the  subject  was  fully  and  earnestly  discussed.  The 
result  of  these  deliberations  is  given  by  Adrian  Wengersky  (Regen- 
volscius  Book  I  Chap,  viii)  :  "  That  in  the  times  of  the  apostles 
there  had  existed  no  diiference  between  a  presbyter  and  a  bishop; 
that  the  distinctive  prerogatives  of  a  bishop  did  not  rest  upon 
explicit  instructions  of  the  Bible,  l)ut  upon  a  provision  of  the 
ancient  Church  ;  but,  that,  in  order,  to  prevent  in  future  all  doubts 


1.  Blaloslav's  Summa  quaedam  collecia  cVc,  Vlllth  Lissa  Folio  ;  Lasitiug 
II,  47,  48  (quoted  by  Plitt) ;  Camerariusp.  93  and  94  (quoted  by  Plitt)  ; 
Regenvolsius  Book  l  Chap,  viii;  Comenius  Ratio  Disc/plinae,  Sections  59 
and60;Gindely".^  Geschiclite  der  Bffilimisclien  Brueder  I,  33-35;  Zeschwiti 

'Die  Katechismen   d.  Waldenser  u.  Bcuhm.  Brueder"  160. 

2.  Comeuiu.s  jK<i//o  Dsciiplinae,  Sectiou  59  p.  17. 


12 


THE  MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE 


on  the  part  of  the  Brethren  themselves  and  all  objections  on  the 
part  of  their  enemies,  the  anciently  established  principle  and 
usage  must  be  maintained."  From  this  point  of  view,  therefore, 
the  Synod  resolved  to  introduce  episcopal  ordination  by  securing 
the  apostolical  succession.  To  apply  for  it  to  the  Calixtines  would 
have  been  useless.  They  were  reconciled  with  Rome,  and  whatever 
they  might  have  been  willing  to  do  ere  they  had  agreed  to  the 
Compactata  of  Basle,  they  would  have  spurned  such  a  request 
now  that  these  were  adopted.  But,  providentially,  there  lived  on 
the  Moravian  frontier  a  colony  of  Waldenses  with  two  Bishops 
who  had  received  the  legitimate  consecration.  Of  these  Bishops 
the  senior  was  Stephen,  the  name  of  the  other  is  not  known.  To 
them  a  deputation  was  accordingly  sent,  composed  of  Michael 
Bradacius,  theretofore  the  principal  minister  of  the  Brethren,  and 
two  other  of  their  priests. ^ 

That  the  object  of  this  mission  was  to  seek  not  fraternal  encour- 
agement, or  ordinary  communion  with  religionists  of  like  mind,  but 
absolutely  episcopal  ordination  and  such  episcopal  ordination  as 
Romanists  and  Calixtines  would  have  to  acknowledge,  is  so  clearly 
shown  by  the  extracts  we  have  given  from  Comenius  and  Regen- 
volscius  that  we  need  add  nothing  more  upon  this  head.  Hence 
we  go  on  to  inquire  whether  these  Waldenses  on  the  Moravian 
frontier  possessed  a  valid  episcopacy  and  could  confer  the  succession. 

THE  VALIDITY  OF   THE  BOHEMIAN  WALDENSIAN 
EPISCOPATE. 

In  their  native  valleys  of  Piedmont,  the  Waldenses  were  never 
an  episcopal  but  always  a  presbyterian  Church.  The  best  authorities 
prove  this,  and  the  mo.st  recent  discoveries  of  Waldensian  documents 
in  the  University  Library  of  Cambridge  and  elsewhere  serve  to 
corroborate  it.  To  teach,  as  has  been  frequently  done,  that  the 
Italian  Waldenses  had  a  succession  of  bishops  stretching  back  to 
the  apostles'  times,  and  independent  of  that  perpetuated  through 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  is  treading ,  upon  most  unhistoric 
ground.  In  no  way  can  such  a  position  be  established.  As  early 
as  the  first  quarter  of  the  fifteenth  century,  however,  we  find 


1.  Some  of  the  authorities  mention  only  two  deputies. 


THE  MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


13 


Waldenses  in  Bohemia,^  and  their  ecclesiastical  development  was 
wholly  different  from  that  of  their  brethren  in  the  valleys.  Paul 
Stransky,  a  Bohemian  historian  of  the  seventeenth  century,  says 
that  they  were  expelled  from  the  South  of  Trance,  came  by  way 
of  Germany  to  I5ohemia,  and  settled  near  Saatz  and  Laun.^ 
was  a  period  of  extraordinary  developments  in  church  and  state 
By  the  execution  of  John  Huss  Rome  had  sown  the  wind  and 
was  reaping  the  whirlwind.  The  Hussite  War  raged  with  terrible 
fury.  However  incongruous  the  elements  among  the  Bohemians; 
they  were  a  unit  in  their  national,  although  by  no  means  doctrinal, 
opposition  to  the  Hierarchy.  These  circumstances,  on  the  one 
hand,  rendered  Bohemia  a  safe  refuge  for  the  Waldenses,  on  the 
other,  laid  a  snare  for  them.  The  Hussites  were  divided  into  two 
factions:  the  Calixtines.  who  contended,  mainly,  for  the  privilege 
of  the  cup  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Taborites,  who  desired 
a  thorough  reformation  of  the  church.  The  former  were  the 
aristocratic,  the  latter  the  popular  party.  Learned  Doctors  of  the 
University  of  Prague  guided  the  one,  enthusiasts  of  the  tented 
city  of  Tabor  the  other.  Coming  into  contact  with  both  these 
factions,  the  Waldenses  shaped  their  course  so  as  to  give  offence 
to  neither.  They  associated  with  the  Taborites,^  they  were  on 
friendly  terms  with  the  Calixtines,  and,  in  course  of  time,  openly 
fraternized  with  them  even  at  the  mass.*    Men  like  Rokycana 

1.  Herzog's  Real  Eucyclopaedie  vol.  xvii.  510  and  520.  Giesler's  Kirch- 
engeschichte  ii,  4,  432. 

2.  History  of  Bohemia,  by  P.  Stransky  6.  6.  (quoted  by  Plitt). 

3.  Herzog's  Real  Eucyclopaedie  vol,  svii,  530. 

4.  This  statement  is  established  by  very  positive  and  abundant  testi- 
mony, both  ancient  and  modern.  Blalioslav  in  h\B  Summa,  &c.,  (Lissa  Folio 
viii)  says:  "It  seemed  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Waldenses  was  taken 
from  the  H.  S.  even  as  is  ours.  Nevertheless,  they  (the  Brethren)  dis- 
covered certain  practices  which  are  unworthy  of  true  disciples  of  Christ 
and  deserve  ^ensure  :"  and  then  goes  on,  at  considerable  length,  to 
specify  these  practices,  amongst  the  rest,  attendance  at  mass.  Come- 
nius  Rat.  DiscipHnae  Sect.  62,  p.  18,  says  :  "  The  purity  of  their  (Wal- 
denses) doctrine  and  their  endeavor  to  lead  christian  lives  greatly 
pleased  them  (the  Brethren).  But  they  were  displeased  that  they  should 
hide  and  not  openly  confess  the  truth;  and  that  for  the  sake  of  avoiding 
persecution  they  should  frequent  papistical  temples  and  take  part  in 
idolatrous  worship."  Zeschwitz  in  his  Katechismen  der  Waldenser  u. 
Bohm.  Brueder  p.  161,  corroborates  this:  "What  the  Brethren  censured 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Waldenses  was,  above  all,  that,  although  they  re- 
cognized in  the  Pope  the  Antichrist,  they  yet  did  not  openly  proclaim 
their  protest,  but  even  took  part  iu  the  Romish  mass."  And  Herzog  in 
his  article  on  the  Waldenses  (Encyclopaedia  xvii,  520)  repeats  the  same 
charge,  and  adds  that  this  sort  of  accommodation  the  Waldenses  every- 
where allowed  themselves. 


14 


THE     MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


and  Martin  Lupac,  leadinj^  Calixtine  divines,  the  one  afterward 
elected  Archbishop  of  Prague  and  the  othei  his  Suffragan,  were  well 
disposed  toward  them,  and  esteemed  Stephen  especially  as  an 
excellent  man.^  Nor  did  such  relations  cease  when  the  unprece- 
dented route  of  the  papal  and  imperial  crusaders  at  Tauss,  in 
1431,  which  filled  all  Europe  with  amazement,  forced  Sigismund 
to  confess  that  the  Bohemians^  were  invincible,  and  that  the  Council 
of  Basle,  then  in  session,  must  immediately  open  negotiations  with 
them.  On  the  contrary,  the  intimacy  grew  so  close  that  the 
Waldensis  turned  it  to  their  own  advantage.  It  so  happened  that 
their  priests  had  nearly  all  died,  and  that  a  renewal  of  their  ministry 
was  desirable.  This  the  Calixtines  could  not  only  effect,  but  could 
thereby  also  give  them  a  far  more  influential  position  than  they  had 
as  yet  enjoyed.  The  Calixtines  lent  a  willing  hand,  and  upon 
their  recommendation  two  Waldenses,  Frederick  Nemez  and  John 
Which,  were  ordained  priests,  on  the  14th  of  September,  1433, 
in  the  Siavoni;ni  (Jonvcnt  of  Prague,  by  Bishop  Nicholas  (Philibert), 
a  Legate  of  the  Council  of  Basle.  In  the  summer  of  the  following 
year  (1434),  these  two  priests  were  sent  to  Basle,  where  the  Council 
was  at  open  variance  with  the  Pope,  and  in  a  full  convocation  of 
clerrjy  consecrated  Bisfliops  hy  Bishops  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  It  was  done  again  at  the  instance  of  the  Calixtines  and 
out  of  regard  for  them,  the  Council  being  anxious  by  all  possible 
means  to  gain  their  confidence.  Thus  the  Bohemian  Waldenses 
obtained  the  apostolical  succession,  and  Bishop  Stephen  and  his 
colleague,  who  had  been  consecrated  by  Bishops  Nemez  and 
Which,  could  legitimately  transfer  it  to  the  Brethren. 

For  this  account  of  the  origin  and  validity  of  the  Bohemian 
Waldensian  episcnpate  the  following  are  the  direct  authorities  : 

1.  A  "Narrative  of  liio  origin  of  the  Unitas  of  the  Brethren," 
in  the  Jjissa_^Folips,.  written  in  the  year  lt)05,  and  probably  by 
Bishop  Jafiet.  It  gives  facts  and  dates  as  we  have  presented  them 
above,  and  that  nn()(-r  i-ii  cunistances  forming  a  most  indisputable 
guarantee  ol'  tlicir  rdnccfiicss.  For,  as  clearly  appears  from 
internal  cvi<lencos.  tiiis  Narrative  was  one  of  the  controversial 
writings  with  which  the  Bishops  of  the  Brethren  were,  at  that 
time,  officially  meeting  the  assaults  of  Wenzel  Sturm,  a  learned  and 


1.  Palacky  Geschrehte  v.  Boehiiien  vol.  vii,  p.  494. 


TlIK    MORAVIAN     K  1' I  S  C  (>!' A  T  K  . 


15 


cunning  Jesuit,  who  tried  his  utmost  to  render  the  Unitas  Fratrum 
— no  longer  an  obscure  community,  but  a  powerful  church — con- 
temptible iu  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen  by  dispuniging,  amongst 
other  things,  its  ministry.  Consequently  if  this  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Bohemian  Waldensian  episcopate  had  not  been 
authenticated  beyond  all  doubt,  the  Bishops  would  not  have  ventured 
to  base  upon  it  their  refutation  of  Sturm's  charges,  as  he  might 
at  once  have  proven  it  false,  which  he  never  attempted  to  do. 

2.  Palacky,  who  in  his  '-Geschichte  von  Ba^hmeu"  (vol.  vii  p. 

492)  says,  treating  of  the  Bohemian  Wuldeuses : 

"The  narrative  given  in  an  old  manuscript  is  nut  improbable,  namely, 
that  in  the  autumn  of  1433  Bislii]p  Philibert,  as  Legate  of  the  Council 
of  Basle,  ordained  Waldensian  priests  iu  tlie  Slavonian  Convent  of  Prague, 
of  whom  several,  it  is  said,  were  in  the  following  year  (1434)  elevated,  at 
Basle,  even  to  the  dignity  of  bishops.  For  it  is  possible  that  such  an  act, 
just  at  that  tiiue,  was  meant  as  an  example  and  encouragement  for  the 
Bohemians,  that  they  might  be  the  more  ready  to  agree  to  the  Compac- 
tata  of  the  Council.  ' 

3.  Gindely,  who,  in  his  "(<e.>5cliichtc  der  Bcclniiischeii  Bruedcr" 
(vol.  i,  p.  37),  describing  the  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Lhota,  says  : 

"It  may  ou  this  occasion  have  become  known  to  tlie  Brethren  tliat  the 
(Bohemian)  \Valdenses  of  that  day  claiineil  a  valid  ejiiscopale,  and  they 
certainly  knew  that  their  superintendents  ni:nle  nsr  of  the  episcopal  title. 
In  particular  did  they  hear  of  Stephen,  the  lie;i.l  '.if  ilu  .-e  Austrian  Wal- 
denses,  who  was  said  to  have  been  consecrated  Ijy  a  W.ildensian  liishop 
that  bad,  in  1434,  himself  received  consecration  at  the  liamls  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  prelate — a  statement  which  the  Calixtiues  of  Bohemia  pronoun- 
ced correct.'' 

This  direct  testimony  of  an  original  document  and  of  two  modern 
Komish  authors  would  be  amply  sufficient  even  if  it  were  all  that 
we  had.  It  is,  however,  not  all.  For  the  authorities  which  we 
shall  bring  forward  to  prove  our  next  point  will  be  found  to  offer 
such  overwhelmiusi:  collateral  evidence  as  to  leave  no  room  even  for 
a  quibble. 

Ere  taking  up  this  point,  a  few  words  more  with  regard  to  the 
Bohemian  Waldenses.  Admonished  by  the  Brethren,  who  sent  a 
second  deputation  to  them  and  fraternally  reproved  them  for  their 
ktitudinarian  practices,  they  grew  bolder  in  confessing  the  truth. 
Persecutions  were  the  consequence.  Their  Ualixtiue  friends,  who 
had  long  since  relapsed  into  indifference  upon  the  question  of 
reform,  forsook  them ;  liishop  Stephen,  arrested  while  laboring 
among  the  Germans,  was  carried  to  Vienna  and  burned  alive  at 
the  stake;  his  flock  iu  Bohemia  scattered  and  disappears  from 


16 


THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


history. 1  Thus  the  Bohemian  Walden.sian  episcopate  became 
extinct  after  but  a  short  duration.  May  we  not  assume  that  God 
had  permitted  it  to  be  instituted  as  a  necessary  factor  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Church  of  the  Brethren,  and  that  this  having  been 
completed  its  mission  was  done  ? 

THE  CONSECRATIOiN  OF  THE  FIRST  MORAVIAN 
BISHOPS. 

We  now  continue  our  narrative.  The  three  deputies  of  the  Synod 
of  Lhota  arrived  among  the  Wajdenses,  met  with  a  cordial  reception, 
and  were  consecrated  Bishops  by  Stephen  and  his  colleague.  It 
was  not,  as  Perceval  asserts,^  "  an  imposition  of  hands"  "  in  token 
of  fellowship  and  agreement,  and  for  the  confirming  of  their  minds," 
there  being  "  of  any  idea  of  consecration  not  a  whisper" — but  it  was 
a  coimrration  of  hiahop^  hi  the  JuUcM  srnsfc  of  this  title  and  in  the 
strictdit  mriininfj  of  thix  ojjivc.  We  establish  this  position  by  the 
evidence  here  following : 

1.  Blahoslav's  Smnma  &c.,  (Lissa  Folio  viii)  says : 

"  Our  countrymen  were  informed  that  somewhere  near  Austria  lived 
certain  ones  of  the  nurnberof  the  Waldenses,  of  whom  it  was  reported 
that  they  had  the  pure  doctrine  of  Christ,  neither  had  given  place  to 
simony  :  that  they  had  also  brought  together  among  themselves  both 
grades  of  the  ministry,  namely,  the  episcopal  and  the  priestly.  Two  of 
our  people  were  sent  to  their  Bishops,  or  Seniors,  of  whom  two  were 
found.  Our  deputies  lay  before  them  their  [lurpose,  and  narrate  to  them 
all  that  had  been  transacted  (at  the  Synod  of  Lhota),  and  what  God 
had  done  for  the  Brei  hren,  and  they  ask  their  opinion  concerning  this 
thing.  The  Waldenses  say  that  the  thing  is  of  divine  authority  and  good 
(rem  sanctam  et  piam),  strongly  (vehementer)  commend  it,  and  with  the 
greatest  joy  confirm  them  in  their  design.  And  immediately,  having 
acknowledged  them  to  be  truly  ministers  of  Christ  chosen  and  sent  by  the 
Lord,  they  consecrate  them  with  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  declare 
them  to  be  their  associates  in  the  Lord  and  fellow- bishops  (imposita  capiti 
manu  illos  benedicunt  atque  socios  in  Domino  et  Co-Episcopos  appellant)  ; 
and  having  been  further  exhorted  to  go  into  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord,  the 
deputies  returned  to  their  own." 

2.  Lasitius  distinctly  aflBrms  (Lasitius  II,  45,quoted  by  Plitt), 
that  the  priests  sent  by  the  Brethren  to  the  Waldenses  were 
consecrated  Bishops  by  the  Waldensian  Bishop  Stephen. 


1.  Blahoslav's  Summa  &c.,  Lissa  Folio  viii  ;  Comenins'  Ratio  Disciplinae 
Sect.  G2,  p.  18  ;  Palacky  Gesch.  v.  Bohmen  vol.  vn,  494;  Zeschwitz  Ka- 
techismen  &c.,  p.  161. 

2.  The  Christian  Miscellany,  London,  September,  1841  p.  4. 


THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


17 


3.  The  General  Synod  of  Zerawitz  (1616),  in  the  official  pre- 
face to  the  Ratio  DisclpUnae,  (p.  3  and  4)  says  : 

'•  And  iuasnuich  as  the  Waldenses,  wbom  we  mentioned  before,  affirmed 
that  they  had  legitimate  Bishops,  and  a  legitimate  and  uninterrupted 
succession  from  the  Apostles,  they,  in  a  solemn  rite,  created  Bishops  of 
three  of  our  ministers,  and  conferred  upon  them  the  j)Ower  to  ordain  " 
ministers." 

4.  Coinenius  (Ratio  Discipliuae,  Sect.  61,  p.  18)  says: 

■'  Knowing  that  there  were  certain  Waldenses  on  the  confines  of 
Austria  and  .Moravia,  the  Brethren  sent  to  them  Michael  Zambergius 
(the  other  uame  by  which  .Micliacl  Bi-adacius  was  known,  from  the  village 
of  Zamberg  in  which  he  lived,)  with  two  others,  in  order  that  they 
miglit  fully  provide  for  conscicutious  scruples  (namely,  on  the  subject 
of  ordination)  among  their  own  people  and  among  others,  both  for  the 
present  and  (mark !)  for  the  J'ului  e.  These  should  tell  them  what  had 
been  done,  and  ask  their  opinion  with  regard  to  it.  They  find  their 
Bishop  Stephen.  He  having  called  the  other  Bishop  and  several  of 
tlieir  ministers,  these  set  forth  riieir  origin,  the  articles  of  their  doctrine, 
and  what  horrible  things  the  Waldenses  had  thus  tar  snfiered  in  Italy 
and  Gaul.  On  the  othtr  hand,  they  listen  to  the  accuiiiit  which  our 
deputies  give  concerning  our  secession  from  the  Pope  and  the  Calixtines, 
approve  of  it  and  congratulate  them  upon  it;  and  wiiat  is  more,  con- 
ferring upon  these  three  the  power  to  make  ministers,  they  create  them 
Bishops  with  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  send  them  back  to  their  own 
(quinimo  tribus  illis  Ministros  creandi  potestate  collata,  raanuum  impositi- 
one  Episcopos  creant,  et  ad  suos  remittunt). 

5.  Adrian  Wengersky  (Regenvolscius,  1,  8,  p.  33),  to  quote  the 
translation  which  Perceval  has  himself  given,  says: 

"And  whereas  the  aforesaid  Waldenses  affirmed  that  they  had  lawful 
Bishops,  and  a  lawful  and  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles, 
they,  in  a  solemn  rite,  created  Bishops  of  three  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Brethren,  who  had  been  already  elsewhere  ordained,  and  conferred  on 
them  the  power  of  ordination." 

6.  &indely,  in  his  Geschichte  dar  Boehmischen  Brueder"  (vol. 
I,  p.  37),  says : 

"To  this  Stephen  the  Brethren  re.'^olved  to  send  Michael,  that  he  might 
be  consecrated  a  Bishop.  Michael,  accompanied  probably  by  Matthias, 
proceeded  on  his  journey,  found  Stephen,  obtained  what  he  had  come 
to  seek,  and  returned  to  his  own." 

7.  The  Roman  Catholic  Encyclopaedia,  one  of  the  greatest 

modern  works  of  the  Romish  Church — "  Kirchen-Lexicon,  oder 

Encyclopaedic  der  Katholischen  Theologie  und  Kirche,  von  Wetzer 

undWelte.     Freiburg,    in    Breisgau,  1848  " — which  called  forth 

the  Protestant  Encyclopaedia  edited  by  Herzog,  in  its  article  on 

the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Brethren  (vol.  II,  p.  65),  says : 

"The  Brethren  living  scattered  through  the  country  occasionally  met 
ID  council  for  the  purpose  of  mutual  deliberations.  One  subject,  which 
at  such  times  particularly  engaged  their  attention,  was  the  manner  in 

3 


18 


THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


whichtjiey  should  supply  the  want  of  ministers  which  they  already  begau 
to  feel.  After  long  consultations,  about  seventy  of  the'most  influential 
of  the  Brethren  from  Bohemia  and  Moravia  met,  in  the  year  1467,  and 
chose  by  lot  three  men,  Matthias  Kunwald,  Thomas  Prelautscb  andElias 
Krenov,  who  were  recopjnized  as  set  apart  by  God  for  the  ministry  of 
the  Brethren.  And  as  a  body  of  Walden.ses  had  settled  on  the  Moravian 
Austrian  frontier.of  whom  the  Brethren  knew  'hat  they  had  legitimate 
Bishops,  descended  from  the  Apostles  in  an  unbroken  "succession,  they 
caused  those  tliree  elected  candidates  (this  is  evidently  an  inaccuracy, 
it  should  be,  three  previously  ordained  priests)  to  be  consecrated  Bishops 
with  the  imposition  of  hands,  by  the  Waldensian  Bishop  Stephen,  who 
was  afterward  burned  at  Vienna." 

8.  Zeschwitz,  a  Doctor  of  the  University  of  Eriangen,  of  Mo- 
ravian parentage,  hut  himself  a^bigoted  Lutheran,  in  his  recent 
worii,  which  we  have  repeatedly  cited,  which  is  wholly  devo- 
ted to  the  relation  subsisting  between  the  Waldenses  and  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  and  which  contains,  as  was  to  be  expected,  not 
a  few  unfavorable  opinions  concerning  the  latter,  says,  speaking  of 
the  consecration  of  the  first  Moravian  Bishops  by  Stephen : 

"  It  is  a  fact  that  does  not  admit  of  a  doubt,  and  has  lately  been 
established  in  so  surprising  a  manner,  by  a  writer"  of  Herrnhut,  that 
nothing  remains  to  be  said  upon  it."l 

9.  The  Brethren's  earliest  enemies  and  persecutors,  whose  tacit 
acknowledguieufc  of  the  validity  of  their  episcopacy  is  a  most  re- 
markable evidence.  Never  did  these  bitter  controversialists  and 
bloody  men  call  it  into  question.  Kokycana  denounced  the  institu- 
tion of  a  separate  ministry,  and  heaped  woes  upon  the  heads  of 

jthe  Brethren,  not  because  he  could  say  that  they  pretended  to 
^  have  lawful  bishops,  but  because  they  had  consecrated  unlearned 

!  laymen,  and  inducted  them  hito  so  holy  an  office.^  If  he  had 
known  that  the  claims  of  the  Waldensian  episcopacy  were  invalid, 
as  he  would  have  known  in  case  they  had  been  invalid,  is  it  credible 
that  he  would  have  remained  silent  upon  this  subject? 

Omitting  the  numerous  Moravian  writers  of  modern  times,  whose 
evidence  might  be  added,  and  summing  up  merely  these  nine 
points  of  testimony,  we  find :  that  the  most  ancient  historian  of 
the  Brethren,  appointed  to  collect  materials  for  their  history;  the 
Ileformed  author  in  point  of  time  next  after  him,  and  fully  conver- 


1.  Die  Katechismen  der  Waldenser  u.  Bohmischen  Brueder  als  Doc- 
umente  ihres  wechselseitigen  Lehraustausches.  Von  Gerhard  von  Zesch- 
witz, Dr.  u.  Prof,  der  Theologie,  Eriangen,  1863,  pag.  163. 

2.  Palacky  Gesch.  v.  BcBhmen,  vol.  vii,  p.  489. 


THK    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE 


19 


sant  with  these  materials  ;  an  oflBcial  docutneut  of  a  General  Synod 
of  the  whole  Unitas  Fratrum ;  the  distinguished  exile-bishop, 
whose  literary  fame  was  ivide  as  Europe,  and  of  whom  Gindely 
testifies  that  '•  he  had  studied  the  history  of  his  forefathers  with 
the  most  devoted  care  and  his  companion  in  exile,  who  had 
closely  examined  the  original  records  as  his  many  references  prove 
— therefore  all  the  ancient  authorities,  except  Camerarius,  unite  in 
affirming  that  the  apostolical  succession  was  given  by  the  Bohe- 
mian Waldenses  to  the  Bohemian  Brethren  :  and  further,  that  the 
present  Archivist  of  Bohemia,  a  Roman  Catholic  Proftssor,  who 
has  made  their  history  his  particular  and  favorite  study  ;  the  Roman 
Catholic  Encyclopaedia,  the  modern  standard  in  that  Church  on  eccle- 
siastical hisfory  and  cognate  questions;  and  an  intensely  Lutheran 
author  who.  with  much  research,  tries  to  unravel  the  true  rela- 
tionship between  the  Bohemian  Waldenses  and  the  Bohemian 
Brethren — explicity  corroborate  this  affirmation  :  and,  finally, 
that  the  very  oppressors  and  persecutors  of  the  Church  silently 
do  the  same. 

But  why  cannot  Camerarius  be  added  to  the  list  of  witnesses  ? 
■Let  us  see. 

>OAMERARIUS'  VERSION  OF  THE  CONSECRATION  OF 
THE  FIRST  MORAVIAN  BISHOPS. 
Joachim  Camerarius,  speaking  of  the  mission  of  the  Brethren 
to  the  Waldenses,  represents  it  as  follows,  to  adopt  the  translation 
of  Perceval : 

"  To  them  came  the  emissaries  of  the  Brethren,  and  laid  before  them 
their  affairs  and  accounts  ;  all  things  were  approved  of  by  them,  who 
professed  singular  joy  at  the  knowledge  of  the  piety  and  religion  of  the 
Brethren,  and  affirmed  that  the  things  that  were  done  by  them  were 
agreeable  to  the  institution  and  administration  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles, 
and  right  in  themselves:  to  which  they  added  an  exhortation  to  them 
strenuously  to  pursue  the  way  of  the  truth,  of  heavenly  doctrine,  and  of 
d.iscipline  agreeable  thereto,  which  they  had  entered.  And  they  laid 
their  hands  on  them,  blessing  them  ^fter  the  manner  of  the  Apostles,  for 
the  sake  of  con6rming  their  minds,  and  in  token  of  fellowship  and 
agreement. "2 

This  extract  is  the  mainstay  of  Perceval's  whole  argument  upon 
historic  grounds ;   this  shows,  he   imagines,  that  there  was  no 


1.  Gindely  s  Quellen,  Preface  p.  x. 

2,  Christian  Miscellany  p.  3  and  4. 


20  THE    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 

thought  of  an  episcopal  conseciation,  but  merely  of  a  fraternal 
cppimunion  ;  with  this  he  collates  Adrian  Wengersky's  narrative, 
cited  above,  and  is  then  led,  ''speaking  mildly,  to  affirm  thai 
these  incongruous  accounts  present  very  great  difficulty  in  arriving 
at  the  truth  of  the  story  :"  this  induces  him  to  explain  the  Anglican 
recognition  of  the  Moravian  Episcopacy  by  saying :  •'  Possibly 
they  (the  English  prelates)  knew  only  the  accounts  of  Regenvolsch 
and  Comenius,  and  had  not  noted  the  totally  different  accounts 
to  be  found  in  the  earlier  histories  and  documents  collected  aud 
published  -by  Camerarius."' 

Now  remembering  that  EQJ"Cfl.yal  was  unacquainted  with  Blahoslav 
and  Lasitius,  excepting  the  eighth  book  of  the  latter  on  the 
Brethren's  Discipline,  published  by  Comenius;  and.  further,  that 
he  wrote  his  paper  in  the  "Christian  Miscellany"  one  year  before 
the  discovery  of  the  Lissa  Folios,  sixteen  years  before  the  researches 
of  Gindely  and  Palacky  were  given  to  the  world,  and  eighteen 
years  before  the  "  Quellen  zur  Geschichteder  Boehmischen  Brueder" 
appeared  ;  and  finally,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  and  hence  miscon- 
ceived the  circumstances  under  whicli  the  work  of  Camerarius 
was  compiled — let  us  inquire  what  weight,  if  any.  the  conflicting 
evidence  of  this  ancient  writer  has  in  the  present  aspect  of  the  case. 

In  former  parts  of  this  article  it  has  been  shown  :  ^tjt,  that 
Camerarius  undertook  the  history  of  the  Brethren  at  their  ©wn 
request,  as  is  obvious  from  the  original  correspondence  between  them 
found  in  the  Lissa  Folios  and  recently  published  by  Gindely,  and 
as  we  may  now  substantiate — although  testimony  other  than  that 
correspondence  will  hardly  be  demanded — by  Zeschwitz,  who 
says,  "  Heretofore  writers  depended  almost  exclusively  on  the 
work  of  Camerarius,  but  they  seem  to  have  been  little  acquainted 
with  the  fact  that  this  Lutheran  historiographer  compiled  his 
delicately  drawn  narrative  at  the  direct  instigation  of  the  Brethren 
themselves.and  was  enabled  to  do  this  by  the  sources  which  they  sent 
him  second,  thatevery  page  of  his  work  proves  that  these  sources 
were  principally  Blahoslav's  Summa  &c.,  and  Lasitius'  History, 
which  point  we  may  again  make  good  by  our  Lutheran  witness^ 
Zeschwitz,  who  writes,  "Every  page  of  the  book  demonstrates 


1.  Ibid  p.  7. 

2.  Zeschwitz  Die  Katechismen  &c.,  p.  136. 


THE   MORAVIAN     K  P  I  S  C  O  I-  A  T  K 


21 


that  Camerarius  drew  his  information  chiefly  from  Biahoslav  and 
Lasitius  third,  that  Biahoslav.  whose  very  words  we  have 
adduced,  and  Lasitius,  as  quoted  hy  Plitt,  both  positively  declare 
that  the  deputies  of  the  Brethren  were  consecrated  Bishops  by  the 
Waldensian  Bishops.  Consequently  the  conclusion  is  self-evident, 
that  Cdmcroriu!'  fulstficd  Kusfc/N/.  > 

He"  did  not  give  an  account,  as  Perceval  for  want  of  better 
knowledge  would  have  us  believe,  drawn  from  "  histories  and  doc- 
uments earlier"  than  those  which  Coraenius  and  Regenvolscius  had, 
and  disproving  their  narrative,  but  with  precisel}'  the  same  "  earlier 
histories  and  documents"  before  him  that  guided  them,  he  changed 
the  truth,  whereas  they  faithfully  reproduced  it. 

Nor  is  it  diflScult  to  divine  the  motives  by  which  he  was  actuated. 
Camerarius  wrote  from  the  standpoint  of  the  (ierman  Reformers, 
who  rejected_  episcopacy,  ke  was  a  warm  friend  and  admirer  of  </^^  • 
the  Brethren,  but  this  feature  of  their  ecclesiastical  constitution 
neither  accorded  with  his  views  nor  presented  itself  to  his  mind  '' 
as  important.  It  would  rather,  he  thought,  tend  to  awaken  mis- 
trust among  his  fellow-Reformers,  to  whom  he  was  anxious  to 
commend  the  Brethren.  For  these  reasons,  which  he  deemed  to 
be  sufficient,  he  laid  aside,  in  this  instance,  the  exalted  character 
of  an  honest  historian.  Is  it  surprising  that,  under  such  circum- 
stances, his  work  remained  in  manuscript  for  thirty  years  after  his 
death,  and  was  at  last  publi,«ihed,  not  by  the  Brethren,  but  by 
his  own  grandson  ? 

The  conflicting  testimony  of  Joachim  Camerarius  is,  therefore,  ^ 
proven  to  be  wholly  without  weight,  a  mere  idiosyncratic  whim. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  MORAVIAN  EPISCOPACY. 

Having  critically  investigated  the  origin  and  validity  of  the 
Moravian  Episcopacy,  it  yet  remains  for  us  to  consider  its  develop-^ 
ment  and  preservation,  and  the  transfer  of  the  succession  to  the 
present  Church. 

After  the  return  of  the  newly  consecrated  Bishops  from  the  Wal- 
denses,  a  second  Synod  was  held  at  Lhota,  in  the  midst  of  which 
the  three  candidates  for  the  ministry,  designated  by  lot  on  the 


1.  Ibid.  p.  137. 


22  THE  MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATK 


occasion  of  the  former  Synod,  were  ordained.  Matthias  of  Kunwald 
bishop.  Thomas  and  Elias  priests.  At  the  same  time,  a  regular 
form  of  episcopal  govornuient  was  instituted.  The  four  bishops 
formed  an  ecclesiastical  council  over  which  Bishop  Michael,  as 
primate,  presided,  and  which,  in  conjunction  with  a  body  of  ten 
elders  occupyino;  the  position  of  counsellors,  ruled  the  j'oung 
church.  Ever  after,  the  "episcopal  succession  was  carefully  pre- 
served, and  when  the  Brethren  had  extended  their  bounds,  divided 
into  two  lines,  the  Bohemian-Moravian  and  the  Polish.  The  three 
grades  of  deacon,  presbyter  and  bishop,  were  as  carefully  kept 
distinct.  In  the  course  of  time  classes  of  acolyths.  or  candidates 
for  the  ministry,  were  established,  and  assistant  bishops  consecrated. 
The  Ratio  DUciplinae  gives  a  complete  account  of  the  character 
and  functions  of  these  grades,  and  of  the  manner  in  which 
ordination  to  each  of  them  was  performed  (Comenius,  Ratio 
Dii^ciplivar  p.  7—92). 

That,  in  spite  of  all  this,  Perceval  tells  us  (Christian  Miscellany 
p.  6),  "  the  terms  minister,  consenior,  senior  and  bishop  did  but 
express  different  offices  of  one  order,  as  among  us  the  offices  of 
vicar,  rector,  rural-dean  and  archdeacon,  are  all  held  by  clergy  of 
one  order,  even  presbyters,"  basing  this  view  upon  misinterpretations 
of  extracts  from  the  eighth  book  of  Lasitius,  which  extracts  show 
the  exact  converse,  is  a  disingenous  argumentation  and  involves  a 
palpable  absurdity.  A  more  explicit  statement  of  the  distinctions 
of  the  three  grades  of  the  Christian  ministry  was  never  given, 
than  that  found  in  the  Ratio  DiscipJinae.  It  would  l«ad  us  too 
far  to  furnish  citations ;  they  would  fill  pages.  The  reader  will 
find  the  substance  of  this  document  in  Holmes'  Brethren's  History, 
Vol.  I,  Sect.  Ill,  p.  64—91.  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  the 
assembled  bishops  and  ministers  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  would 
publish  to  the  world  a  full  account  of  the  three  ministerial  grades 
established  among  them,  when  there  really  existed  but  one,  is  to 
suppose  that  they  were  a  body  of  arch-deccivers. 

That  Perceval ,  furthermore,  flings  out  the  charge  that  "  none  of 
their  (the  Brethren's)  writers  exhibit  any  succession  of  consecrations 
beyond  a  few  at  first"  (Christian  Miscellany  p.  6),  is  truly  unfortu- 
nate for  his  general  credibility  as  an  author.  For  Regenvolscius. 
whom  he  repeatedly  quotes  and  whose  work  he  must  have  had  before 
him,  presents  in  his  Third  Book,  Chapter,  x,  p.  315-382,  a  com- 


TMK  MORAVIAN    1 1' I  S  C  0  P  A  T  K  .  23 


plete  succession  from  the  beginning  to  his  own  time  (1644)  j  and 
this  succession  is  reprinted  in  "Cranz'sBrueder  Historic"  (p.  91-99) 
— a  book  also,  several  times  cited  by  Perceval — and  brought  down, 
in  accordance  with  Jablonsky's  letter  of  1717  to  Dr.  Wake,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury/  to  the  times  of  the. present  Church.^  The 
same  succession  is  given  by  Gindely,  in  an  Appendix  to-  his 
"  Quellen"  (p.  450-453).  TheVuccession  in  the  present  Church  is 
set  forth  by  Plitt  from  the  official  records  in  the  archives  at  Herrn- 
hutjand  the  entire  succession  from  1467  to  1859  is  printed  in 
the  Moravian  Manual"  (p.  129-l.?3y  embracing  one  hundred 
and  sixty  bishops,  since  which  time  six  more  have  been  consecrated. 

That,  finally,  Perceval  argues  against  the  3Ioravian  episcopacy 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  newly  created  bishops  of  1467,  and 
their  successors  in  the  old  Church,  were  generally  called  Seniors  ' 
and  not  Bishops,  will  but  provoke  a  smile;  for  himself  declares  - 
that  tbe  title  was  rejected  on  account  of  the  abuse  of  it  among  the 
adversaries.  So  far,  therefore,  from  its  being  hard  to  conceive 
that  men  should  have  been  careful  to  preserve  that,  the  name  ot 
which  they  shrank  from  owning" — it  is  preci.sely  what  we  would 
expect  from  a  body  of  Christians  protesting,  with  all  the  fire  of 
their  first  love,  not  against  the  cxisfence  of  bishops  in  the  lloman 
Catholic  and  Calixtine  churches,  which  was  acknowledged  to  be 
an  ancient  and  wise  institution  and  hence  adopted  among  them- 
selves, but  against  the  misuse  of  that  holy  office.  Moreover  the 
title  of  bishop  (episcopus)  is  constantly  employed  in  the  Ratio 
Disciplinae,  and  in  the  voluminous  Annotations  with  which  Co- 
menius  has  enriched  that  document,  he  disapproves  of  the  position 
the  fathers  had  in  this  respect  occupied,  pronouncing  it  to  have  been 
a  needless  scruple  (Annotata  ad  Caput  1,  Q,  p.  71). 

THE  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  EPISCOPATE. 

When  the  Bohemian  Anti-reformation  had  swept  the  Church  of 
the  Brethren  from  her  original  seats,  she  continued  to  exist,  for 
some  lime  longer,   in  Poland,  where   she  had  been  previously 


1.  Published  in  PfaflF's  Dissertatio  de  Sitccessione  Episcopali,  1721,  under 
the  title  of  De  Successione  Ordinis  Epucopali  in  Unitate  Fratrum  Bohemorum. 
The  substance  of  it  is  given  in  English,  in  the  Acta  Fratrum.  in  Anglia.^. 
112—115. 


THK    MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE. 


established,  aud  where  a  number  of  the  exiled  ministers  now 
sought  refuge.  These,  iu  conjunction  with  their  Polish  brethren, 
held  a  S^nod  at  Lis.sa,  in  1632.  The  victories  which  Gustavus 
AHolphus,  the  champion  of  ProtestantisEi,  was  gaining,  filled  them 
with  the  confident  hope  of  a  speedy  restoration  to  their  native 
land,  an  I  suggested  the  idea  of  perpetuating  the  Eoheniian-JMoraviaa 
line  of  Bishops.*^  One  representative  of  it,  Bishop  Gregory  Erastus,* 
was  still  living,  while  the  Polish  succession  was  vested  in  Bishops 
Daniel  Micolajevius  and  Paul  Paliurus.  The.se  three,  accordingly, 
consecrated  Laureiitius  Justinus,  31atthias  Procopius,  and  John 
Amos  romeiiius,  for  Bohemia  and  ^Moravia,  as  also  Paul  Fabricius 
for  Poluud.  In  the  following  year  (1638),  Paul  Paliurus  having 
died,  Martin  Oruiiinus  and  John  Ptybinius  received  consecration 
at  Ostrorog  ;  and  eleven  years  afterward  (1644 j — Gregory  Erastus, 
Daniel  Micolajevius  and  Matthias  Procopius  being  no  more — 
IMaruu  Gerticljius  and  J olm  Byttner.  at  fjissa.  Twenty-two  years 
passed  away,  and  the  only  Bishops  that  remained  were  John  Amos 
Oomeuius,  an  exile  iu  blollaud,  and  John  Byttner,  in  Poland.  The 
sanguine  auticiiiations  of  the  Brethren  had  not  been  fulfilled; 
the  Thirty  Years'  A\'ar  had  left  Bohemia  and  Moravia  under  the 
heel  of  the  Austrian  oppressor.  But  still  they  hoped  against 
hope,  and  by  the  advice  and  with  the  episcopal  concurrence  of 
the  now  venerable  Cumenius  given  in  writing,  in  as  much  as  the 
infirmities  of  old  age  {)revented  him  from  being  present,  Bishop  John 
Byttner,  at  a  Synod  held  at  Mielencin,  (1662),  consecrated 
Nicholas  Gertichius  and  Peter  Jablonsky,  that  the  successiojft 
might  not  be  lost.  But  the  latter  died  January  12th,  1670 — in 
which  year  Comenius  was  also  gathered  to  his  fathers, — and  Nich- 
olas Gertichius,  May  24th,  1671.  Thereupon,  although  the  scat- 
tered Brethren  had  greatly  decreased,  and  the  Polish  branch  of  the 
Church  was  being  absorbed  by  the  Reformed,  John  Byttner,  the 
sole  surviving  Bishop,  still  anxious  to  preserve  the  episcopate  in 
the  event  of  a  future  resuscitation,  and  mindful,  in  particular,  of 
the  prophetical  hopei  of  Comenius,  consecrated  Adam  Samuel 
Hartman,  on  the  28th  of  October,  1673,  at  Lissa.  Byttner  dying 
soon  after,  and  on  his  death-bed  designating  John  Zugehoer  as  the 
next  bearer  of  the  succession,  he  was  consecrated,  in  the  presence 
of  a  number  of  his  brethren,  by  Bishop  Hartman,  on  the  13th  of 
August,  1676,  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  and  Paul,  at  Danzig. 


TI!i:    MORAVIAN    I)  P  1  S  C  0  I' A  T  E  . 


25 


Again,  upon  the  death  of  Hurtman  in  1691,  Bishop  Zugehoer 
continued  the  succession  by  consecrating  Joachim  Gulichius,  on 
the  2Gth  of  June,  1692,  atJjissa;  and  l^isiiop  Gulichius  transferred 
it,  at  the  same  place,  after  the  death  of  Zugehoer,  to  John 
.Tacobides  and  Daniel  Krnst  Jablonsky,  (the  grandson..of  Conienius 
and  Court-Preacher  at  Berlin),  on  the  10th  of IWarchj  1699.  The 
former  died  in  1709.  whereupon  JJishop  Daniel  P]rnst  Jablonsky 
con.secrated  Solomon  Opitz,  the  Uth  of  July,  1712,  at  Zulchow,  on 
the  Polish  confines  of  Prussia,  and  David  Cassius  and  Christian 
Sitkovius,  the  4th  of  November,  of  the  same  year,  at  Thorn. ^ 

In  this  vfiiy  the  sucee^ion  was  carefully  and  piously  preserved 
even  in  that  period  ni  which  the  Moravian  Church  remained  a 
"  hidden  seed."  These  bjshops  did  not  make  use  of  their  title  ex- 
cept when  they  met  the  remnant  of  their  Brethren  at  occasional 
Synods,  held  here  and  there,  for  the  confirmation  of  their  hopes 
and  the  amelioration  of  their  sufferings.  They  were  ministers  in 
the  Reformed  Church,  but  with  the  consent  of  the  same,  and  of 
their  respective  sovereigns,  received  consecration  as  Bishops  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum  in  order  lhat  the  succession  miyht  not  die  out. 
Hence  the  difficulty  di.'-appears  which  Perceval  tries  to  create  by 
assuming  that  Jablonsky's  episcopal  character  could  neither  have 
been  known  nor  recognized  even  in  his  own  time,  because  candi- 
dates fi>r  the  ministry  went  from  Prussia  to  England  in  order  to 
be  episcopally  ordained,  and  because  there  was  an  active  corres- 
pondence between  the  courts  of  Berlin  and  St.  James's  with  the 
view  to  obtaining  episcopal  cou,secration  (Christian  Miscellany  p. 
6).  Not  that  he  might  officiate  as  a  bishop  in  the  National 
Establishment  of  Prussia,  nor  that  he  might  make  it  an  episcopal 
church,  had  he  been  admitted  into  the  Moravian  Episcopate.  To 
do  either  would  have  been  entirely  contrary  to  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  maintained.  Let  us  hear  his  own  account  of  the  case. 
In  a  letter  to  Count  Zinzendorf,  dated  the  13th  of  August,  1729, 
he  writes  : 

"The  Bohemian  Brethren's  Church  in  Great  Poland  is  steadily  decreas- 
ing by  reason  of  the  uninterrupted  oppression  of  its  enemies,  but  she 
Entertains  the  hope  that  God,  in  His  great  and  marvellous  mercy,  will 


I.  The  above  e.vposition  of  the  succession  since  the  times  of  Come- 
nius,  is  given  by  Jablonsky  in  liis  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
Acta  Fratrum  in  Anglia,\^.  W'iiini^ 

4 


26 


XUE    MORAVIAN  KPISCOPATE. 


sustain  her,  yea  and  even  cause  her  again  to  extend  and  spread.  M\ 
parents  were  born  in  this  ('liiirch  ;  my  Father  l)e};ot  me  in  his  exile.  In 
this  snnie  ("hiirch  1  \v:is  lirouizlit  ii|),":ni(i  my  li.ve  to  her  I  imbibed  with 
my  nii'tlirr's  ll  lins,  imh  I'd,  ploii-cil  ih"  i;,  sepanite  nie  from 

hei*  in  the  \uu\y  hni   llinr  \i ;i j u.-- 1 i c^,  ill.  Imu._',  who  rests  in  God, 

and  the  rci^iiiiig  l\iun-,  h:i\ c  most  gfacii)usl\  ihoiiubl  proper  to  allow  me 
to  take  part  in  the  administration  of  her  bishoi)riek.''l 

A  subsequent  letter,  dated  Octobei'  81st.  of  the  same  year, 
adds  : 

'  -''By  the  most  gracious  permission  of  our  picids  Priticc,  then  known  as 
the  Elector  Fredericjc  iii,  but  since  17b"  as  King  Frederick  1,  1  received 
episcopal  consecration  iif  'the  yvnr  1699,  on  the  10th  of  March,  tit  a~Synod 
held  at  Lissa,  in  Great  Poland.  On  account  of  my  absence  from  that 
country,  there  were  two  Bishops  there,  the  one,  David  Cassius,  at 
Lissa,  the  other  at  Zychlin  ;  but  as  the  latter  died  last  year,  \te  speak 
of  soon  consecrating  another  in  his  ])lace,  that  the  succession  may 
continue  to  be  perpetuated.  Abont  twelve  years  ago,  it  happened  ii' 
England  that  certain  enemies  of  all  evangelical  churches  on  the  Continent 
took  occasion  to  assert  and,  even  to  publish  through  the  press,  that  the 
Bohemian  Brethren  had  never  had,  and  had  not  then,  lawful  bishops.  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  William  Wake,  thereupon  wrote  to  me 
and  asked  for  information  upon  this  snbject.  I  replied  by  giving  him 
the  circumstantial  succession,  with  which  he  declared  himself  to  be. 
perfectly  satisfied.  Neither  I,  nor  the  Bishops  in  Poland,  however,  make 
iTse  of  the  episcopal  title,  because  we  think  proper  fo  avoid  the  ofFen- 
s'iveness  of  it,  it  being  Unusual  among  Germaii  Protestants,  and  calcu- 
lated to  be  a  stumbling  block  rather  than  to  promote  edification. "2 

THE  TRANSFER  OF  THE  El'ISCOPATE  TO  THK  J>RK- 
SENT  MORAVIAN  CHURCH. 

In  the  year  1722,  the  prnyers  and  hopes  of  the  aged  Comenius 
were  at  last  fulfilled,  although  in  a  way  different  from  what  he 
had  anticipated.  At  Ilerrnhut,  on  an  estate  of  Count  Zinzen- 
dorf,  in  Saxony,  the  ancient  Church  of  Bohemian  and  Moravian 
confessors  was  renewed.  That  this  was  a  legitimate  renewal,  that 
the  Moravian  immigrants  who  had  there  found  a  refuge  were  the 
spiritual  descendants  of  his  own  spiritual  fathers,  Jablonsky  joyfully 
acknowledged.^  Hence  when  the  Brethren  laid  before  him  a 
formal  request  to  transfer  to  them  the  venerable  succession,  pre- 
served amidst  perils,  persecutions  and  exile,  he  willingly  con- 
sented, and,  at  Berlin,  on  the  13th  of  March,  in  the  year  1735, 


1.  Koelbing's  Nachricht  von  der  Bischoefiichen  Ordination  in  de>' 
Brneuerten  Bruederkirche  p.  22.  The  original  letter  is  in  the  Herrnhf** 
Archives. 

2".  E'oelbings  Nachricht  &c.,  p.  26. 

3.  Koelbing's  "Nachricht,"  &c.,  pp.  27  and  2&. 


THK     MOR/AV^AN    B  PI  S  C  0 1  A  T  E  . 


solemnly  consecratcd^with  the  concurrence  of  Christian  Sitkovius^^ 
the  other  suj-ylsdn^^  Bishop,  David  Nitschma^n^  to  be  the  first 
Bishojj^  of  the  Renewed  (Jhurch  of  the  Brethren.  Two  years 
afterward  (May  20.  JJgy, )  he  and  Bishop  Nitschmann,  again  with 
the  concurrence  of  Sitkovins,  and  also  with  the  permission  of  the 
King  of  Prussia,  consecrated  Count  Zinzendorf  to  be  her  second 
Bishop.  And  now  both  Jablonsky  and  Sitkoviut^  deemed  the 
purpose  accomplished  for  which  the  succession  had  been  thus  far 
upheld,  and  neither  of  them  consecrated  any  more  bishops.  They 
had  given  the  episcopate  to  the  resuscitated  Church  of  their  hopes 
and  love,  and  conferred  upon  the  new  Bishops  all  the  functions 
which  belong  to  this  office. 

In  the  archives  of  the  Moravian  ('hurch  at  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  where 
Bishop  Nitschmann  died  and  lies  buried,  is  preserved  the  original 
certificate  of  his  consecration,  in  Jablonsky's  own  hand  writing, 
and  signed  with  the  ancient  episcopal  seal,  which  is  the  same  as 
^hat  in  use  at  present.  .  This  document,  by  way  of  conclusion,  we 
here  present  in  an  English  dress  : 

In  the  name  of  the  Triune  God  blessed  forever  :  to  whom  be  honor 
iind  (jlory  from  everlasting  to  everlasting.  Amen. 

Whereas  it  has  pleased  the  Eternal  God,  whose  name  is  Wonderful,  to 
suffer  his  faithful  confessors,  the  Bohemian-Moravian  Brethren,  to  fall 
into  circumstances  so  grievous  that  many  of  them  are  necessitated  to 
leave  their  native  land,  and  to  seek  other  places  where  they  may  serve 
God  with  a  free  conscience,  and  confess  His  truth,  whence  it  hath  come 
to  pass  that  they  are  scattered  in  part  to  the  northernmost  countries  of 
Europe,  and  in  part  even  to  the  American  Continent,  and  to  several 
islands  near  the  same:  and  whereas  this  Allwise  God  hath  put  into  the 
heart  of  the  high  and  noble  born  Count  and  Lord,  Lord  Nicholas  Lewis, 
Count  of  Zinzendorf  and  Pottendorf,  in  a  fatherly  manner  to  care  for  ' 
these  Bohemian  Moravian  Brethren  in  their  dispersion,  and  to  make  pro- 
vision for  their  temporal  and  spiritual  well-being,  but  especially  for 
their  well  established,  ancient.  Christian  statutes  and  Church  discipline: 
and  whereas,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  their  congregation, 
he  has  adopted  the  godly  resolution'to  have  consecrated,  in  the  old  Mo- 
ravian manner,  as  a  Senior  and  Bisiiopof  the  said,  and  of  future  colonies, 
together  with  all  their  churches  and  pastors, — the  Reverend  Mr.  David 
Nitschmann,  one  of  the  first  of  those  Moravian  witnesses  in  America 
who  must  venture  all  upon  God,  and  to  whom  the  Lord  hath  given  the 
first  converts  from  the  heathen  : 

Therefore,  upon  proper  request  to  this  effect  tome  made,  I,  the  under- 
signed, oldest  Senior  and  Bishop  of  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Brethren 
in  Great  Poland,  with  the  knowledge  and  sanction  of  my  colleague  in 
Great  Poland,  the  Bishop  Christian  Sitkovins,  have  ordained  the  said 
Mr.  David  Nitschmann,  on  the  I3th  day  of  March,  IT35,  in  the  name  of 
tjrod,  and    according  to  our  Christian  method,  with  the  laying  on  of 


28 


THE   MORAVIAN  EPISCOPATE 


hands,  and  with  prayer,  to  be  a  Bishop  of  said  Churches  and  have  given 
him  power  to  hold  the  necessary  visitations,  to  ordain  the  pastors  and 
servants  of  the  churches,  and  to  fulfill  all  the  functions  which  belong  to 
a  Senior  and  Bishop. 

The  faithful  Savior,  to  whose  service  he  has  dedicated  himself,  power- 
fully support  him  ;  grant  him  courage  and  strength;  and  accompany  his 
apostolical  office  with  the  fullness  of  blessing^i  to  the  honor  of  God,  and 
to  the  salvation  of  many  souls;  so  that  he  may,  in  the  vineyard  of  ihe 
Lord,  bear  much  fruit,  and  his  reward  may  be  great  in  eternity  ! 

The  above  I  have  myself  written,  signed,  and  sealed  with  our  Church^ 
seal. 

Given  at  Berlin,  ^  ,  . 

the  14th  day  of  June,  1737.      "  f  '-  J  '       '  • ' ' 

"  Daniel  Ernst  Jablonsky, 

. , — »— X ,  Royal  Court  Preacher,  Church  Counsellor,  Counsellor  of  the 
1  S  L    I  ^'■•1  ^'''^  oldest  Senior  and  Bishop  of  the  Po- 

1     "1  hemian  Moravian  Brethren  in  Great  Poland. 


0 


